Slashdot Mirror
British Library Puts Oldest Surviving Bible Online
Peace Corps Library writes "BBC reports that about 800 pages of the earliest surviving Christian Bible, the 1,600-year-old Codex Sinaiticus manuscript, have been recovered and put on the Internet. 'The Codex Sinaiticus is one of the world's greatest written treasures,' says Dr. Scot McKendrick, head of Western manuscripts at the British Library. 'This 1,600-year-old manuscript offers a window into the development of early Christianity and first-hand evidence of how the text of the Bible was transmitted from generation to generation.' The New Testament of the Codex Sinaiticus appears in Koine Greek, the original vernacular language, and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery until it was found in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany, and Britain. It is thought to have survived because the desert air was ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered. The British Library is marking the online launch of the manuscript with an exhibition which includes a range of historic items and artifacts linked to the document. 'The availability of the virtual manuscript for study by scholars around the world creates opportunities for collaborative research that would not have been possible just a few years ago.'"
Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.
What major discrepancies? Yes, there have been a few changes over the years by different translators, typos, etc. But I don't think any of them could be considered major. There are many different ways to translate things from any language. And there weren't any copiers back when the first books first came out. Yes, we can't pretty much be guaranteed that Paul's letters that are in the bible differ slightly from those Paul himself wrote. However, the message is kept constant. If you question the bible with several old sources, you would have to put the same scrutiny in a lot of other historical texts to make sure they haven't been manipulated through the ages where we have a whole lot less evidence than with the bible.
With several additonal books that aren't in the current versions one has to wonder why the "words of god" Would be left out.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
...Yet why would many of the followers of Christ before that time go to their deaths believing it if it were a lie? I mean, if you helped lead a lie about a resurrection would you die because of it? Or would you simply shut up when people threatened you? Yet there is no evidence that any of them did that. Why would Paul write so strongly about the resurrection even in prison? Heck, why would Paul leave his life of luxury as a Jewish leader stoning Christians if he didn't experience something supernatural?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Variants in the text are already noted in the footnotes of most bible translations. As another poster mentioned earlier, this is a non-event as far as textual criticism goes. Scholars have had access to photographic copies and to the genuine article for decades. What makes this newsworthy is that now non-scholars have some access.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
And since God is infallible, there are no changes that were not intended by Him!
Let me guess: you're either posting from somewhere outside America (most likely Europe), or you're Roman Catholic. American Evangelical Christians do not accept that the Bible is fallible, nor do they recognize denominations that do as actually being Christians! (Yes, as far as a large percentage of Americans are concerned, the Catholics are no more Christian than the Latter Day Saints or the Rastafarians or the Tibetan Buddhists.)
Being Christian definitely does not mean you're a "religious nutjob" as GPP suggested, but, on the other hand, thinking that Christians are all religious nutjobs is not an entirely unreasonable position for an American. In America, those that aren't are very nearly lost in the noise (the nutjobs are very noisy), and can be dismissed as a statistical anomaly if you're not paying careful attention.
Frankly, if some of the sane and smart Christian out there (and I know they're out there) would speak out more often and more loudly against the religious nutjobs who proclaim so vehemently that they are the only true Christians, I would have a lot more respect for Christians in general.
Furthermore you reveal your own prejudices when you assume that someone who doesn't approve of the Christian nutjobs must be an atheist. I assure you that there are plenty of Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Unitarians, Pagans, just plain agnostics, and even a fair number of Christians (especially Catholics) who would be just as happy to slap these fruitcakes who claim to be the One True Christians with a common-sense fact or two.
But it isn't responding to a troll, PKD is correct.
They should call it Paulism instead of Christianity.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He saw there was more money in it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Unfortunately, all I have to believe any of this are translations of translations of recollections years after the fact. Do you know any U.S. soldiers in Iraq? I do, and 2 out of 3 of them believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, and would happily have died believing that ridiculous lie.
Judging Truth based on how many people believe it -- particularly when those people died 2000 years ago -- is beyond asinine.